Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNNW 6
CNN 5
MSNBCW 5
MSNBC 3
FBC 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she was within the context of that statement. and for this, she has been pillaried for two months. i don't understand it. it has to stop. if it continues, it's going to set up once again a partisan divide in these -- the house and the senate, which congressman rogers and i have tried to overcome and have overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committees. >> congressman rogers, to my understanding, talking to government officials, is that what susan rice said on "meet the press" five days after the attack and other programs as well, was very similar to what then director petraeus said privately on september 14, that there appeared to be a terrorist element to it but that it appeared first to be spontaneous but it became a terrorist attack, and that that was his belief. so were they not speaking basically in the same way? >>
, and ambassador susan rice come over a two-week period. catherine herridge learned today that neither the director of national intelligence, nor the acting cia director, was responsible for repairing preparing a report that partially blamed the benghazi attack on amateurish youtube anti-islam video. they claim the president obama pressed upon the american people and upon the united nations general assembly. he was push hard to explain what caused them to push the youtube video three days after that attack. the chief said simply he was not at the betray -- petraeus briefing and had nothing to say. there was demonstrable and incurable evidence of their involvement and no evidence of anything other than a terrorist attack. and the administration continued to press its false tale, despite fox news reporting and they reported within 24 hours, u.s. intelligence agencies monomania that the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al qaeda, but had also identified and located one of the leaders of the attack. despite warnings hours before, state department e-mails reviewed two hours into the attack tha
a tough message to senator mccain over congressional criticism for u.n. ambassador susan rice. >>> also, this morning, violence grows as israel and hamas look to be on the brink of war. we'll have the latest report on the ground. good morning from washington. it's thursday, november 15th 2012. this is "the daly rundown." i'm chuck todd. let's get first to my first reads. president obama wanted to spend his first post election press conference showing he was ready to reach across the aisle. instead, he found himself on the receiving end of criticisms from not one, but two former presidential rivals. the president himself was loose, confident and at times aggressive trying to show he's in charge of these budget investigations. also to appear magazine 1/2 muss. magnanimous. he pledged to sit down with his rival governor romney. >> there are certain aspects of governor romney's ideas that i think could be very helpful. >> while the president was paying mitt romney compliments, mitt romney was telling donors on a conference call a different story. blaming his defeat on a financial what he ca
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
to make sure susan rice is nominated by the president, u.n. ambassador to be secretary of state, is that enough to make sure she's confirmed. >> i would be surprised if he nominated susan rice. although she probably would be confirmed, hearings would be a misery, a place where we would see again and again that she was the mouthpiece for a false story about what happened in benghazi. does the administration want to be held hostage to susan rice's overstatements of the case on tv multiple, multiple times. >> i don't know if you have inside information, everything i hear the president wants her to be the next secretary of state. >> she would be a strong nominee, excellent for this job. and if republicans want to go down the road of benghazi making it a political issue, we saw it play out in the campaign, not much success for them, it would be a strategic error to play politics with this issue and try to block susan rice with it. >> what about john kerry, rumored to replace panetta at the defense department. already calling the swift boat activity, saying he threw away his medals fr
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
to something that was just asked. about susan rice. if she was to go before a confirmation hearing -- >> for you i'll break the hypothetical rule. >> nobody 0 else. >> thank you. if she were to go before a senate confirmation hearing could she answer questions with a simple yes? are questions answerable? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, april. again, i'm not going to speculate about personnel matters and who will or will not be participating in nomination hearings. you know, i can tell you that the president believes that ambassador rice has done an excellent job, as the united states ambassador to the united nations, and i believe that -- and i know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent and in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in benghazi and going back to briefings that we had again and again, that the information that we provided was based on the available assessments at the time, and as those assessments evolved and became more detailed and clear we provided additional information, and that was certainly true
could be rumored to be the next defense secretary and susan rice still considered potentially for secretary of state. your thoughts on either of those individuals taking a more prominent role in the president's cabinet? >> let me first say a word in defense of secretary clinton and secretary panetta being in australia. this is for an annual meeting. and i think it is very important that we demonstrate solidarity with the australians the fact they're out of town shouldn't be concerning. on these potential nominations i have to say i have clashed with senator kerry many times over the years on policy you about i have to say in all those years i have never seen him demonstrate the slightest interest in going to the defense department. i think he clearly wants to be secretary of state and, it may be that the president decided he wants susan rice to have that job and he is giving senator kerry the defense department as a consolation prize which would not be a terribly good signal. jenna: ambassador, always nice having you on the program. thank you so much. >> thank you, jenna. rick
.n. susan rice going to be secretary of state, that could be a very ugly confirmation hearing. and senator john kerry talked about as defense secretary, wolf? >> yeah, there's been reports that john kerry, who i always assumed wanted to be secretary of state could be the next secretary of defense leon panetta has made it clear he's ready to move on and go back to california after all these years in washington, former cia director, now the secretary of defense. i don't know how long that will last. but if kerry is nominated to be the secretary of defense, that does leave hillary clinton's job at the state department open. and susan rice was always -- at least i always believed she was the front-runner until those controversial comments she made about the benghazi killing of the u.s. ambassador and three other americans on those five sunday talk shows. and the republicans really have been going after her. and if the president stands firm and nominates her to be the next secretary of state, it will be a bruising confirmation hearing, there's no doubt about that. my p sense is, he probably wan
that there is support for secretary rice that is susan rice, the u.n. ambassador for the united states, for taking the position had she leaves of hillary clinton as secretary of state. and that name, susan rice, has been bandied about for quite a long time, but now, you know, the drumbeat is increasing and secretary clinton, remember, has said she will leave at the end of the term, that would mean january, but she's also indicated that she might stick around until the president is able to replace her and that would mean, of course, that the president would have to nominate someone and that person would a have to get through the senate. that's where the plot thickens because susan rice, as we all know, is part of this unfolding saga about benghazi and the attack that killed the u.s. ambassador and other americans in libya. so she has been blamed a lot, of course, for coming out and saying that those attacks, that attack was spurred by a video and then later on the administration said that it was terrorism. that could set her up for some really tough times in hearings up on capitol hill, in front of
be the next secretary of state, molly. >> reporter: yes, the ambassador susan rice who is now the current u.s. ambassador to the united nation -ts she may succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state over there at state department according to the "washington post." we've heard ambassador rice's name a lot this fall after she appeared on numerous talk shows after the deadly libya attack and repeated the obama administration's position that the attack was the result of a demonstration turned violent and not a terror attack. and we now know that that is not true. rice may face opposition on capitol hill if the president does nominate her as secretary of state. secretary clinton has not said when she's leaving, but she has said in the past that she wants to move on and a state department spokesman said that the secretary quote intends to see through the transition of a successor and then she will go back to private life. martha: so interesting watching all of this move around. senator john kerry for the past month or so, there's been a lot of buzz about him, perhaps as secretary of state, tha
, keeping that in mind, those who talk to me say the following. that u.s. ambassador susan rice has supporters inside the white house to become secretary of state. if she were to go for that job, if she were to be nominated, obviously, she would have a bruising confirmation battle, but people believe she would ultimately get confirmed. do they want that fight is a question and how would that affect the rest of the chess pieces? senator john kerry, who chairs the senate foreign relations committee, has, it's been widely known, long wanted to be secretary of state. if susan rice gets the state nomination, he could be put up for secretary of defense. or not. he says he's right now focused on his job in the senate. another possibility is the president has said he would lake to have a bipartisan cabinet. defense is a good place to put a republican, a republican such as former senator chuck hagel, for example. that's just one name i've heard bandied about. or you could put that person at cia. although the talk is that john brennan, the current homeland security adviser, is the man who cou
.n. ambassador susan rice's declassified talking points on the attack in benghazi. specifically why the role of terrorism wasn't reflected in them. democratic senator dianne feinstein, the chairwoman of the senate intelligence committee, says she'll investigate why the terrorist role wasn't included. still in an appearance on nbc's meet the press, feinstein said she was sure the white house didn't change the language in those talking points. >> with the allegation that the white house changed those talking points, that is false. there's only one thing that was changed. and i checked into this. i believe it to be absolute fact. and that was the word counsel was changed to mission. that's the only change that anyone in the white house made. and i have checked this out. >> republicans are accusing the obama administration of a cover-up and want ambassador rice to testify before congress. >> it's going to be one tough confirmation hearing. all right coming up, president obama on his way to cambodia right now. after an historic stop in myanmar earlier today. so, did the president accomplish what
th and invited clinton to testify then. meanwhile u.n. secretary susan rice is the top candidate to replace clinton when she leaves her post. despite the controversy surrounding rice's response to the benghazi terror attacks. current and former white house officials say rice is still close with the president and shares his views on foreign policy. well, two different countries, two very different stories. iran's defense minister now claiming that two iranian planes did shoot at a u.s. drone over the persian gulf. iran claims the drone was within its airspace when fired upon. the white house has said the drone was flying in international airspace. the unmanned drone was not damaged. >> lady liberty lighting up new york harbor for the first time since super storm sandy hit. the statue serves as a beacon of hope for other storm victims. liberty island was badly damaged during the storm. bring and stone walkways were torn up and docks ripped apart. power is also out. so crews are using a temporary lighting system powered by generators to light up the statue. it is shut down indefinit
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)